[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C057C0.7020003@bull.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:08:16 +0200
From: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc: kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/2][KVM] guest time accounting
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>> - perhaps the new fields should be guarded by a #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERVISOR
>>> (selected by CONFIG_KVM)? that way the (minor) additional overhead is
>>> only incurred if it can possibly be used. I imagine that our canine
>>> cousin will want to use this as well.
>>>
>>
>> There is also a CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION and a CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
>> (from
>> s390 and powerpc) Which one to use ?
>>
>
> Are these options for using the kernel as a guest or host? I'd guess
> the former.
I didn't find CONFIG_HYPERVISOR.
The good one seems to be CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION that is used to activate CONFIG_KVM.
>> I'm wondering if we can have a more accurate accounting:
>>
>> - For the moment we add all system time since the previous entering to
>> the VCPU
>> to the guest time (and I guess there is some real system time in it ???)
>>
>> - Perhaps we can sum nanoseconds spent in the VCPU and add it to
>> cpustat when
>> these ns are greater than 1 ms ? (I'm trying to make something in this
>> way)
>>
Ingo (or other guru), could you have a look to the attached patch, it is what I
was thinking about when I wrote this.
Laurent
--
------------- Laurent.Vivier@...l.net --------------
"Software is hard" - Donald Knuth
View attachment "kvm_stat_guest" of type "text/plain" (3234 bytes)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists